|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 21:55:42 GMT -5
I don't know. What do you see going on there? Weelll to me it seems that a reply of "I asked you first" would be apropo on two different counts but I don't have a problem opening up. What I saw was you offering an explanation of why what appears to the mind as a paradox isn't really a paradox, targeted for the thinking rational mind and sourced from the thinking rational mind. ... and ok, while I'm at it, to be perfectly honest, in addition to that I do seem to be tuning into an intermittent Arthur Prince routine with the voice of Sailor Jim played by Digger-the-dermatophyte but that is actually a source of amusement and has presented several opportunities for comedic creativity on my part so ' sall good. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 21:57:54 GMT -5
I don't know. What do you see going on there? Weelll to me it seems that a reply of "I asked you first" would be apropo on two different counts but I don't have a problem opening up. What I saw was you offering an explanation of why what appears to the mind as a paradox isn't really a paradox, targeted for the thinking rational mind and sourced from the thinking rational mind. No, I won't lay claim to that. The words are a conceptualized description of what is seen, which is meant to encourage looking rather than thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 22:01:44 GMT -5
Weelll to me it seems that a reply of "I asked you first" would be apropo on two different counts but I don't have a problem opening up. What I saw was you offering an explanation of why what appears to the mind as a paradox isn't really a paradox, targeted for the thinking rational mind and sourced from the thinking rational mind. ... and ok, while I'm at it, to be perfectly honest, in addition to that I do seem to be tuning into an intermittent Arthur Prince routine with the voice of Sailor Jim played by Digger-the-dermatophyte but that is actually a source of amusement and has presented several opportunities for comedic creativity on my part so ' sall good. ;D I dunno who any of those peeps are, which I suspect makes me a cultural imbecil, but I'm okay with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Dec 28, 2012 22:01:45 GMT -5
"looney bin talk" is an extreme exaggeration. Just because you don't agree or don't understand what he is saying doesn't mean he is not able to function in society. Sure it is an exaggeration. But I can't see the difference between the looney bin guys who are not sure that they exist and Temp's questioning of his own existence. But I did google a bit who would question his own existence and I got several links that listed it as a symptom of depression. So, depression is not exactly looney bin and I might take that back. But it certainly is more than just a little odd. Egads, you're hell bent on diagnosing him with a mental illness? Might you be taking the noises coming out of A's mouth a little too literally or seriously? Are you focussing on the individual terms being used or the gestalt linguistic pattern? I'm not getting the impression that there is anything mentally wrong with Andrew in terms of being a danger to himself or others. He comes across as a very cordial and happy person. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 28, 2012 22:03:18 GMT -5
... and ok, while I'm at it, to be perfectly honest, in addition to that I do seem to be tuning into an intermittent Arthur Prince routine with the voice of Sailor Jim played by Digger-the-dermatophyte but that is actually a source of amusement and has presented several opportunities for comedic creativity on my part so ' sall good. ;D I dunno who any of those peeps are, which I suspect makes me a cultural imbecil, but I'm okay with that. Good Lord, we have something in common.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 22:12:49 GMT -5
... and ok, while I'm at it, to be perfectly honest, in addition to that I do seem to be tuning into an intermittent Arthur Prince routine with the voice of Sailor Jim played by Digger-the-dermatophyte but that is actually a source of amusement and has presented several opportunities for comedic creativity on my part so ' sall good. ;D I dunno who any of those peeps are, which I suspect makes me a cultural imbecil, but I'm okay with that. no to be perfectly honest I had to use google just to set that one up |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 22:14:19 GMT -5
Weelll to me it seems that a reply of "I asked you first" would be apropo on two different counts but I don't have a problem opening up. What I saw was you offering an explanation of why what appears to the mind as a paradox isn't really a paradox, targeted for the thinking rational mind and sourced from the thinking rational mind. No, I won't lay claim to that. The words are a conceptualized description of what is seen, which is meant to encourage looking rather than thinking. ... ok man ... I'll take you at your word and I'll remember that word the next time I start seeing that in the words, and I'll take a good hard look both at the words and inwardly to see what's going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2012 22:24:17 GMT -5
Sure it is an exaggeration. But I can't see the difference between the looney bin guys who are not sure that they exist and Temp's questioning of his own existence. But I did google a bit who would question his own existence and I got several links that listed it as a symptom of depression. So, depression is not exactly looney bin and I might take that back. But it certainly is more than just a little odd. Egads, you're hell bent on diagnosing him with a mental illness? Might you be taking the noises coming out of A's mouth a little too literally or seriously? Are you focussing on the individual terms being used or the gestalt linguistic pattern? I'm not getting the impression that there is anything mentally wrong with Andrew in terms of being a danger to himself or others. He comes across as a very cordial and happy person. What?? Where are going with this again? All I know from Temp is what he is posting. So, excuse me if I'm paying close attention to his words... What else do I have? It doesn't matter if he is loco or depressed or just kidding. The point is that the very act of questioning your own existence is proof of your own existence. Temp is not just questioning the attributes of his existence or someone else's existence. He is questioning his own existence per se. Well, he probably will add a disclaimer here and say that he didn't say that and he might be even right. He already said that he isn't questioning it anymore. However, the very fact that he still can't say that he is absolutely certain of his own existence just means that he still questions it. And the only way this can be explained is with his paradox dogma. Being absolute certain of his own existence would mean that he knows something. So he wouldn't reside in the unknown anymore and it would also be attachment, not free floating, non-fixed anymore. He came up with this term "attachment to areness". What is that? That's beyond hyper-minding, I don't even have a term for that anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2012 22:28:38 GMT -5
No, I won't lay claim to that. The words are a conceptualized description of what is seen, which is meant to encourage looking rather than thinking. ... ok man ... I'll take you at your word and I'll remember that word the next time I start seeing that in the words, and I'll take a good hard look both at the words and inwardly to see what's going on. IOW your premise is that minding will be able to distinguish between minding and not minding in others? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 28, 2012 22:33:40 GMT -5
... ok man ... I'll take you at your word and I'll remember that word the next time I start seeing that in the words, and I'll take a good hard look both at the words and inwardly to see what's going on. IOW your premise is that minding will be able to distinguish between minding and not minding in others? I don't have the word minding over here with me so your words just sound like this to my ears: |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 28, 2012 23:08:24 GMT -5
Greetings..
Although, by my understanding, Andrew over-compensates to the extreme in his efforts to demonstrate his understanding of the mind-play being presented as if it relates to clarity or liberation, but.. Andrew allows himself much greater freedom to 'be what he is', than most.. it seems to me, and i could be misunderstanding Andrew's message, but it seems to me that he is allowing for what is yet unknown/unexperienced, and allowing for limitless potential to be revealed.. yeah, i struggle with Andrew's expressions too, he's far too willing to limit his concepts to the approved script..
I have a long and tumultuous history with Andrew on other forums, as i have with a few others here, too.. i have only recently considered that Andrew actually allows for change, that he allows for an openness that suffers when the discussions are attached to beliefs about what 'this' means or 'that' means.. Andrew seems very dedicated to relating his model with the approved model, and that is his Achilles Heel.. trying to conform to an approved model that is functionally dysfunctional.. a model that assumes it is superior to other models, in the same way its advocates feel about their opinions..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 23:09:05 GMT -5
No, I won't lay claim to that. The words are a conceptualized description of what is seen, which is meant to encourage looking rather than thinking. ... ok man ... I'll take you at your word and I'll remember that word the next time I start seeing that in the words, and I'll take a good hard look both at the words and inwardly to see what's going on. Culio man.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2012 23:14:10 GMT -5
IOW your premise is that minding will be able to distinguish between minding and not minding in others? I don't have the word minding over here with me so your words just sound like this to my ears: Pity, don't have flash. Well, then let me rephrase it, I'm sure you've got the word 'mind' over there. "IOW your premise is that with the help of mind you will be able to distinguish if the other one's (i.e. Enigma) replies come from a place within mind or prior to mind." |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 28, 2012 23:17:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. Although, by my understanding, Andrew over-compensates to the extreme in his efforts to demonstrate his understanding of the mind-play being presented as if it relates to clarity or liberation, but.. Andrew allows himself much greater freedom to 'be what he is', than most.. it seems to me, and i could be misunderstanding Andrew's message, but it seems to me that he is allowing for what is yet unknown/unexperienced, and allowing for limitless potential to be revealed.. yeah, i struggle with Andrew's expressions too, he's far too willing to limit his concepts to the approved script.. I have a long and tumultuous history with Andrew on other forums, as i have with a few others here, too.. i have only recently considered that Andrew actually allows for change, that he allows for an openness that suffers when the discussions are attached to beliefs about what 'this' means or 'that' means.. Andrew seems very dedicated to relating his model with the approved model, and that is his Achilles Heel.. trying to conform to an approved model that is functionally dysfunctional.. a model that assumes it is superior to other models, in the same way its advocates feel about their opinions.. Be well.. I'd say he is way too concerned with finding a flawless model and that's the actual flaw, not the model in itself, although that is also flawed. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2012 23:22:27 GMT -5
Greetings.. Although, by my understanding, Andrew over-compensates to the extreme in his efforts to demonstrate his understanding of the mind-play being presented as if it relates to clarity or liberation, but.. Andrew allows himself much greater freedom to 'be what he is', than most.. it seems to me, and i could be misunderstanding Andrew's message, but it seems to me that he is allowing for what is yet unknown/unexperienced, and allowing for limitless potential to be revealed.. yeah, i struggle with Andrew's expressions too, he's far too willing to limit his concepts to the approved script.. I have a long and tumultuous history with Andrew on other forums, as i have with a few others here, too.. i have only recently considered that Andrew actually allows for change, that he allows for an openness that suffers when the discussions are attached to beliefs about what 'this' means or 'that' means.. Andrew seems very dedicated to relating his model with the approved model, and that is his Achilles Heel.. trying to conform to an approved model that is functionally dysfunctional.. a model that assumes it is superior to other models, in the same way its advocates feel about their opinions.. Be well.. Sure, maybe it's safe to say freedom is the goal for everybody. The issue is really whether that freedom is attained by transcending delusions or indulging in them. |
|
